FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 24, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 38 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 3- cr-0 00 08 -SDM- TGW -2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GEORGE MELQUIADE S, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st24 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Geo rg e Me lqui ad es , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r return o f pr op ert y , fil edpu rs ua ntto Fed eralRu le of C riminal Pro cedur e 4 1( g) . In h is m ot io n, h e al le ge d u nd er o ath t ha t o n

Ja nu ary 13 , 20 04 , fed eral ag en ts arre st edhi m , search edhi s h om e, an d s ei zedth e fo ll owi ng it em s: (1) anAm eri can Tou ris te r Bo okba g c on ta in in g a cco un ti ng bo ok s, (2 ) fi ve go ldm en ’s rin gs , (3) si x g ol d l in k c ha in s, (4 ) si x g ol d b race le ts , (5) twel ve go ldwom en ’s rin gs , (6) si x g ol d e arri ng s, (7 ) on e g ol d m ed al li on , (8) on e pe rs on al go ldch ai n, (9 ) on e p ers on al go ldbra cel et , (10 ) on e g ol d t on e wat ch , (11 )
on e g ol d s ta tu e, (1 2) on e b ig scr een TV set , (13 ) on e DVD pl ay er, (1 4) on e VCR, (1 5) on e “ Bo om

Bo x,” (16 ) th ree p ai rs of d res s b oo ts , (17 ) th ree p ai rs of d res s sh oe s, (1 8) on e le athe r jack et , (19 ) on e “ de si gn ed ” jack et , (20 ) on e cel l p ho ne , (2 1) two sp orts jacke ts , and(22 ) fo urte en“ Gua ll av eras ” sh irt s. Me lqui ad es m ai nt ai ne d t ha t h e o wne d t he li st edit em s, an d was en ti tl edto th ei r return. Rel y in g e nt ire ly on t he go ve rn m en t’s o pp os it io n t o thi s m ot io n—whi chin tu rn ci te d o nl y to anunpubl is he d S ou th ern Dis tri ctof Tex as cas e, Ezen wa v. Un it ed St at es , No. Ci v. A. H-0 4- 33 79 , 20 06 W L 69 65 57 (S.D. Tex. M ar. 1 6, 2 00 6) —t he di st ric t co urt s umm ari ly den ie d M el qu ia de s’s m ot io n. In te rp ret in g M el qu ia de s’s b rie fs li be ral ly, he m ak es two arg um en ts on 1

“Courts do and should show a le niency to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with the 1 benef it of a leg al educ ation.” GJR I nvs., Inc. v. County of Esca mbia, Fla., 132 F .3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), over

ruled on other

grounds by

Ashcrof t v. I qbal, 556 U.S. --- -, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). 2ap pe al . Firs t, tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o fi nd , su a sp on te , th atth e

go ve rn m en t h adno t p ro pe rly serv edMel qu ia de s wi th it s re sp on se to hi s R ul e 41 (g ) m ot io n. Se co nd , th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y pl aci ng un du e “ tru st[in ] th e arg um en ts of t he go ve rn m en t,” d ep riv in g M el qu ia de s o f th e op po rtu ni ty to re pl y

to th is fil in g wh enitde ni edhi s m ot io n o n t he m eri ts . For t he
reas on s d is cu ss edbe lo w, we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itrel ie d
en ti rel y on all eg at io ns m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s re sp on se to de ny Melqui ad es ’s Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n. Th eref or e, we rev ers e an d re m an d. 2

I. Pu rs uantto Ru le 41 (g ), “ [a] pers onag gr ie ve d b y anun la wfu l s earc h a nd
se iz ur e o f pr op erty

or b y th e d ep riv at io n o f pr op ert y m ay m ov e fo r th e p ro pe rty’ s return” by fili ng a m ot io n i n t he di st ric t co urt wh ere t he pro pe rty was s ei zed . Fed
. R. Cri m . P. 41 (g ). Whe re, as he re, the m ov an t “ in vo ke s R ul e 4 1( g) aft er the clo se of all cri m in al pro ceed in gs , th e co urt t reat s t he m ot io n fo r return o f pr op ert y as a ci vi l ac ti on in equi ty.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Howel l, 4 25 F.3d97 1, 9 74 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ). “ Inord er fo r anown er o f pr op ert y to in vo ke Ru le 41 (g ), he m us t s ho w th at he ha d apo ss es so ry

in te res t i n t he pro pe rty sei zedby the go ve rn m en t.” Id
.

Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt err ed whe n evaluating the me rits of 2 Melquiades’ s Rule 41(g ) motion, we nee d not addre ss his first argument. 3W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Id. at97 3.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l i ss ue s re le va ntto a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny a Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n. Id . “ Ru le 41 (g ) ru li ng s ar e b as edon a ba lanc in g o f th e equi ti es an d a re re vi ewedun de r th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard .” Uni te d S ta te s v . De La Mat a, 53 5 F .3d12 67 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). II. Tho ug h we h av e n ev er s ai d i t t hi s way, thi s C ou rt’s p rece de ntin di cat es th at
an al y si s und er Ru le 41 (g ) requi res a m ul ti -s te p i nqui ry . A Rul e 4 1( g) m ov an t 3 who ass ert s a p os t-c on vi ct io n c la im m us t fi rs t d em on st rat e th athe is en ti tl edto th e pr op erty . This sh owi ng im pl ic at es th e th res ho ldrequi rem en t s etou t i n Ho well , th atth e m ov an t h av e a p os se ss ory in te res t i n t he pro pe rty. See Howel l, 4 25 F.3d at97 4. Th e g ov ern m en t m ay reb utth e m ov an t’s al le ga ti on s wi th ev id en ce tha t “ ‘it ha s a l eg it im at e rea so n t o re ta in th e p ro pe rty,’ ” th atitdo es no t p os se ss th e pr op erty , or t ha t t he pro pe rty has be ende st ro y ed . See Un it edSta te s v . Pot es Ram ire z, 26 0 F .3d13 10 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v .
Severa l sources of

persua sive authority

have mor e cle arly

set out the steps that comprise 3 the multi-step analy

tical appr oach. See , e.g ., United States v. Maez, 915 F.2d 1466, 1468 ( 10th Cir. 1990) (“‘ [T] he seizure of proper ty from someone is prima facie evidenc e of tha t person’s entitlement, particula

rly when the se ized property is money .’” ( quoting United States v. Este p, 760 F.2d 1060, 1064 ( 10th Cir. 1985)); 3A Charles A lan Wright e t al., Fe dera l Practice & Procedur e § 673 (3d e d. 2010); see a lso United States v. Palacios Gonzalez, No. 09-14538, 2010 WL1499605, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2010)
. 4Ch am

be rs , 19 2 F .3d37 4, 3 77 (3dCir . 19 99 )). Whe re a m at eri al is su e o f fac t ari se s, the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f Ru le 41 (g ) requi res th e co urt t o “ rece iv e ev id en ce . . . to de ci de th e m ot io n.” See Fe d. R. C rim. P. 41 (g ). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d M el qu ia de s’s m ot io n b as edso le ly on th e p art ie s’ fil in gs , witho utho ld in g a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng . The g ov ern m en t arg ue s o n app eal th atth e d is tri ctco urt d eci si on to do so di d n otam ou ntto erro r be cau se “ Mel qu ia de s wh ol ly fail edto sh ow t ha t t he Uni te d S ta te s ev er h adsei zed th e as se rte d p ro pe rty . . . , andwho ll y fai le d t o s ho w th atth e as se rte d p ro pe rty be lo ng edto hi m .” Acco rd in gl y , arg ue s t he go ve rn m en t, Me lqui ad es fai le d t o es tabl is h apo ss es so ry

in te res t i n t he pu rp orte dl y sei zedpro pe rty, as requi redby Howel l. The st ren gt h o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ar gu m en t re st s upo n i ts
as su m pt io ns —m ad e al so by the di st ric t co urt—th at(1) Mel qu ia de s b or e th e bu rd enof p ro du ct io n a s t o h is own ers hi p i n t he subjec t p ro pe rty and(2) th e di st ric t co urt co ul d d eci de th es e d is pu te d fa ctua l i ss ue s wi th ou t af fo rd in g Mel qu ia de s anop po rtu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s al le ga ti on s. W e h av e h el d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t’s b al d a ss ert io n tha t i t d es tro y edth e subjec t p ro pe rty is i ns uf

fic ie ntto ov erco m e a Ru le 41 (g ) m ov an t’s cl ai m , on ce cri m in al pro ceed in gs ha ve term in at ed . See Po te s R am ire z, 26 0 F .3dat 1 31 4. (“ Alt ho ug h t he go ve rn m en t al le ge s i n i ts pl ead in gs th atth e p ro pe rty so ug htby 5Po te s R am ire z was de st ro y ed , . . . [t]he re i s n o e vi de nc e in th e rec or d tha t Po te s

Ram ire z’s pr op erty

was d es tro y ed . There fo re the go ve rn m en t h as no t m etit s bu rd enin th is cas e, an d t he di st ric t co urt was in co rrec t t o d en y Po te s R am ire z’s
m ot io n wi th ou t re qu iri ng th e g ov ern m en t t o s ub m itat l eas t s om e ev id en ce o f th e pr op erty ’s des tru ct io n.” ). In s o h ol di ng , we no te d t ha t “ ‘the pe rs on fro m who m th e p ro pe rty was s ei zedis pre su m edto ha ve a ri gh t t o i ts return, an d the go ve rn m en t m

us t d em on st rat e th atitha s a l eg it im at e rea so n t o re ta in th e pr op erty .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g C ha m be rs , 19 2 F .3dat 3 77 ). Evenif t he Po te s R am ire z Co urt d idno t i nt en d t hi s p res um pt io n t o app ly to the lo gi cal ly ant eri orin qu iri es of whe th er the go ve rn m en t s ei zedth e p ro pe rty from th e m ov an t o r whe th er the
m ov an t ca n d em on st rat e a p os se ss ory in te res t i n t he pu rp orte dl y sei zedgo od s, the te xtof Rul e 4 1( g) pl ai nl y requi res th ata co urt “ rece iv e ev id en ce o n a ny factu al is su e n eces sa ry

to de ci de th e m ot io n.” See Fe d. R. C rim. P. 41 (g ). Co ns eque nt ly,
on ce a R ul e 4 1( g) m ov an t al le ge s t ha t p ro pe rty was s ei zedfro m hi s h om e an d t he go ve rn m en t d is pu te s t hi s fa ct , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t ata m in im

um affo rdth e m ov an t an op po rtu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m s. Ourpre ced en t an d t he pre ced en t o f othe r ci rcu it s s up po rt t he co nc lu si on th ata Ru le 41 (g ) m ov an t i s n otrequi redto att ach to hi s i ni ti al m ot io n e vi de nc e in
supp ort o f it s al le ga ti on s. Po te s R am ire z rel ie d o n Un it edSta te s v . Cha m be rs , 19 2 6F.3 d 3 74 (3dCir . 19 99 ), whe n s et ti ng ou t t hi s p os t-p ro se cu ti on pre su m pt io n fav or in g m ov an ts . See Po te s R am ire z, 26 0 F .3dat 1 31 4. In Ch am be rs , th e Thi rd Ci rcu itex pl ai ne d t ha t i t d eri ve d t hi s p res um pt io n fr om

th e requi rem en t t ha t a di st ric t co urt h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng to res ol ve m at eri al factua l d is pu te s be twee n the pa rti es . Cha m be rs , 19 2 F .3dat 3 77 –7 8 (n ot in g t ha t n o e vi de nc e was of fere d o r ta ke n i n t hi s m atte r an d t ha t i n o rd er t o re fu te th e m ov an t’s re qu es t fo r return o f pr op erty , “ [t]he go ve rn m en t m us t d o m or e th anst at e, wit ho ut do cu m en ta ry

supp ort, tha t i t n o l on ge r po ss es se s t he pro pe rty at is su e”); see als o Ru fuv. Un it edSta te s, 2 0 F .3d63 , 65 (2dCir . 19 94 ) (fi nd in g apro cedur al de fect in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 41 (e) m ot io n a ndno ti ng th at“ [a]t th e v ery 4 le as t, the di st ric t co urt was requi redto tak e ev id en ce an d m ak e fac tu al fin di ng s t o id en ti fy an y it em s s ti ll inth e p os se ss io n o f th e Gov ern m en t an d a ny ite m s t ha t
m ig htha ve be enlo st ”); Mo ra v . Uni te d S ta te s, 9 55 F.2d15 6, 1 58 (2dCir . 19 92 ) (“ Res earc h h as rev eal edno au th or it y forth e p ro po si ti on th ata di st ric t co urt m us t rel y on a rep res en ta ti on , m ad e b y th e g ov ern m en t o r an y

ot he r li ti ga ntforth at
m at te r. Ins te ad , inm ak in g ade te rm in at io n, a t ria l co urt m us t re ly on t he ev id en ce be fo re i t.”) ; 3 A Cha rle s Al anWrig htet a l., Fed eral Prac ti ce & P ro cedur e § 67 5

In 2002, Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) was re classified a s Rule 41(g ). See 4 Howell, 425 F .3d at 976 n.3. 7(3 d e d. 2 01 0) (“ Ru le 41 (g ) requi res th e jud ge to rece iv e ev id en ce o n a ny iss ue of

factne ces sa ry

to th e d eci si on on a m ot io n t o re tu rnan d t he same is t ru e o n a m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Anev id en ti ary he ari ng ne edno t b e se t as a m atte r of co ur se , bu t o nl y if th e mot io n a ll eg es fa ct

s tha t, i f p ro ved , wou ld req ui re th e gra nt

of
re li ef .” (fo otno te om it te d, em

ph as is ad de d) ). Acco rd in gl y , as M el qu ia de s ar gu es on ap pe al , th e d is tri ctco urt erredby bli nd ly rely in g o n a ndpl aci ng co m pl et e trus t in th e g ov ern m en t’s uns ub st an ti at edall eg at io ns . Whe re, as he re, the pa rti es di sa gr ee as to a m at eri al fact , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t re cei ve ev id en ce b efo re ru li ng on th e Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n. Des pi te th e g ov ern m en t’s co nt en ti onto th e co nt rary, H owe ll do es no t requi re u s t o a ffi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. InHowel l we d idho ldth at“ [i]n
or de r fo r anown er o f pr op erty to in vo ke Ru le 41 (g ), he m us t s ho w th athe ha d a po ss es so ry

in te res t i n t he pro pe rty sei zedby the go ve rn m en t.” Ho well , 42 5 F .3d at97 4. Ho wev er, Ho well do es no t s ta ndfor th e p ro po si ti onth atwhen th e cri m in al pro ceed in gs ha ve reac he d t he ir c on cl us io n, Ru le 41 (g ) requi res th at
m ov an ts att ach to th ei r in it ia l m ot io ns ev id en ce d em on strat in g t he ir p os se ss ory in te res t. Nei th er d oe s Ho well all ow ad ve rs e p art ie s t o re ston bare al le ga ti on s t ha t de ny the ex is te nc e o f an y su ch in te res t. InHowel l the m ov an t cl ai m eda ri gh t t o t he return o f $1 40 ,00 0 o f Offi ci al 8Adv an cedFund s (“ OAF”), m on ey us edby a con fid en ti al so ur ce i n adru g b us t. Id
. at97 3. In th atcas e, th e co nf id en ti al so ur ce m erel y

sh owe d t he $1 40 ,00 0 t o Howel l b efo re ag en ts arre st edhi m . Id. We no te d tha t “ [u ]nde r th e un co ntra di ct ed fa ct s in th is m at te r th ere i s n o b as is for an y cla im by the de fen da ntof a ny po ss es so ry

in te res t i n t he $1 40 ,00 0 o f OAF.” Id . at 9 74 (em ph as is ad de d)
. Bec au se th e u nd is pu te d fa ct s o f th e cas e rev eal edth atth e p ro pe rty “ ne ve r be lo ng edto th e d efen da ntan d h e n ev er g ai ne d o wne rs hi p o r co nt ro l o f th e[] fu nd s,” i d. at97 5, i t was un ne ces sa ry forth e d is tri ctco urt t o h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng be fo re ru li ng on Howel l’s m ot io n. Howel l al so ass ert eda ri gh t t o re tu rnof t hr ee fi rearm s s ei zedby the go ve rn m en t. Aga in , th ere was no ne edforth e d is tri ctco urt t o h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . Firs t, as to Howel l’s p os se ss ory in te res t i n t he weap on s, i t was

“ un disp ut ed

th atth e d efen da ntwas the reco rdown er o f al l thr ee o f th es e fir earm s.” Id . at 9 74 (em ph as is ad de d) . In the ab se nc e o f an y di sp ut edis su e o f fact , we pro gr es se d t o the ne xtst ep of t he Ru le 41 (g ) in qu iry andfou ndth at , as a m at te r of law, the fir earm s co ul d n otbe returne d t o Ho well . Becau se Howel l was
a co nv ic te d fe lo n, re tu rnof t he se weap on s wo ul d h av e v io la te d t he fed eral st atut e pr oh ib it in g fe lo ns fro m

po ss es si ng fir earm s. Id . at 9 76 . In re ach in g t he
co nc lu si on th atHowel l was no t en ti tl edto return o f th e fi rearm s, we ci te d t o 9Uni te d S ta te s v . Fel ic i, 2 08 F.3d66 7 (8 thCir . 20 00 ), th e la ng ua ge of wh ic h 5
supp orts Mel qu ia de s’s co nt en ti on th athe is en ti tl edto anop po rtu ni ty to p res en t
ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s m ot io n. In Fel ic i, the Eig hth C irc ui t h el d: Ru le 41 (e) c om

pe ls a di st ric t co urt t o a ffo rdsu ch pe rs on s an op po rtu ni ty to s ub m itev id en ce i n o rd er t o d em on strat e th atth ey are la wfu ll y en ti tl edto th e ch al le ng edpro pe rty. . . . W he n i t is a pp ar en t th at th e p er so n s eeki ng

a r et ur n o

f the pr op er tyis no t l aw

fu ll y en ti tl ed to ow n o r p os sess th e p ro pe rt y, th e dis tr ic t co ur t n eed

no t ho ld an evi de nt ia ryhe ar in g . Fel ic i, 2 08 F.3dat 6 70 (em ph as is ad de d) . Becau se Howel l s ou gh t m on ey th at
un qu es ti on ab ly “be lo ng edto th e g ov ern m en t atall ti m es th ro ug ho utth e dru g tra ns act io n,” Howel l, 4 25 F.3dat 9 75 , andso ug htth e return o f weap on s wh ic h, as
a m atte r of

law, h e co ul d n otpo ss es s, i d. at97 6– 77 , no ev id en ti ary he ari ng was requi red . By

co m pa ris on , inth is cas e th e p art ie s d is pu te whatpro pe rty was s ei zed fro m Mel qu ia de s’s h om e. Fu rth erm or e, th e g ov ern m en t h as no t cl ai m edth at , as a m at te r of law, Me lqui ad es wou ldno t b e en ti tl edto th e p ro pe rty lis te d, i f he can pr ov e th atitwas i n fa ctsei zedfro m hi s h om e. Ther efo re, we co nc lu de th aton ce a Melquiades a lso relies on an Eighth Circuit opinion, Blade v. United States, 256 F
. 5 App’x 24 (8th Ci r. 2007), to support his argument that the district court e rre d by placingits trust in the g overnme nt’s asser tions, withoutaff

ordinghim an opportunity to present r esponsive arguments and supportingevidenc e. In Bla de, a Rule 41( g ) movant, a f eder al inmate, re quested the re turn of nine spe cific items that the g overnme nt had alleg edly seized from him without notice. I d. at 25. The B lade Court cited to a string of Eig hth Circuit opinions , including F elici, that sug g est it is error to de ny a Rule 41(g ) motion before acc eptingevidenc e nec essar y for resolution of “f

actua l issues related to whe ther [the movant] was entitled to the return of his proper ty .” I d. 10Ru le 41 (g ) m ov an t al le ge s fa ct s s uf fic ie ntto su st ai n h is cla im s, wh ic h a re n ei th er ba rredby law no r fri vo lo us , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t co ll ectso m e ev id en ce to 6
res ol ve m at eri al factua l i ss ue s. 7
It is worth noting that De partment of Justice regulations appea r to requir e the r etention 6 of such doc uments. Pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 128-50.101: Eac h burea

u shall be re sponsible for esta blishing and ma intaining inventor y rec ords of its seized persona l property to ensure that: (a) The date the prope rty

was seized is rec orded; (b) All of the proper

ty associate d with a ca se is rec orded tog ether under thecase name a nd number; (c) The location of storag e of the proper ty is recor ded; (d) A w ell documented c hain of c ustody is kept; and (e) All information in the inventory rec ords is acc urate and cur rent. 41 C.F.R. § 128-50.101. The g overnme nt’s response to Melquiades’s motion ref ere nces just such an inve ntory . In addition, it dis cusses Spec ial Ag ent Scott Oliver’s Repor t of Investig ation and his oral c onfirmation of what items were se ized on J anuar y 13, 2003. Howeve r, the g overnme nt did not attach the inventory , the Report, or the ag ent’s stateme nt to its response ; it did not include these doc uments in the rec ord on appe al; and it did not cite to any portion of the rec ord whe re this evidenc e could befound. It is entirely

possible that on remand the g overnme nt will present evidenc e that it never seized the g oods listed by Melquiades’ s motion. However, the district court ca nnot shirk its duty to collect such e vidence in the fac e of disputed mate rial issues of fa ct. See Chambe rs, 192 F.3d at 378 (“ Be cause no evidenc e wa s offe red or taken in this matter, the g overnme nt did not meet its burden a nd the District Court did not discharg e its duty under Rule 41( e).” ). Howell is also distinguishable f rom this case be cause in Howell the g overnme nt actually 7 did attach significant e vidence to its Rule 41(g ) opposition. In response to Howell’s motion, the g overnme nt submit ted seve n exhibi ts: an FB Irepor t on the arr est of Howe ll and search of the rele vant pre mises (N.D. Ga . 4:00-cr- 65-HLM-GGB , Doc. No. 93, E x . 1, at 13); a D EA investigation report (id., Ex. 2, at 18); a sec ond FB I repor t (id., Ex . 3, at 22); an F BI rec eipt for proper ty rec eived ( id., Ex . 4 at 25); an F BI consent to sea

rch f orm (id., Ex. 5, at 28); an FB I repor t itemiz ing doc uments seized in the searc h (id., Ex. 6, at 30); and an F BI repor t describinga 11Thi s co nc lu si on is als o c on si st en t wi th Howel l’s o bs erv at io n t ha t co urts

tre atpo st -p ro se cu ti on m ot io ns forreturn o f pr op erty as c iv il act io ns inequi ty. See id . at 9 74 . Our s is te r ci rcu it s h av e in co rp or at edfed eral civ il pro cedur al st an da rd s whe n ana lyzin g R

ul e 4 1 m ot io ns . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Rit ch ie , 34 2 F .3d 90 3, 9 07 –0 8 (9 th Cir . 20 03 ) (n ot in g t ha t the m ov an t h adall eg edfact s s uf fic ie ntto
supp ort a m ot io n fo r return o f pr op ert y , andev al ua ti ng th e g ov ern m en t’s op po si ti on as i t wo ul d h av e a Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ) m ot io n t o di sm is s) ; Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z-Ag ui rre, 2 64 F.3d11 95 , 12 03 –0 4 (1 0t h C ir. 20 01 ) (co ns id eri ng a Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) st an di ng ch al le ng e to a Ru le 41 (e) m ot io n)
. Co ns tru in g t he go ve rn m en t’s o pp os it io n t o b e a fac ia l at ta ck on th e p la in ti ffs ’ st an di ng , th e Ro dr ig ue z-Ag ui rre C ou rt o bs erv ed :

8

wea pon found in Howe ll’s vehicle ( id., Ex . 7, at 33). Thus, the r ecor d in Howell re flec ts that the district court denie d Howell’s motion for r eturn of g oods only afte r re ceivingevidentiar y support for the g overnme nt’s position. There are two way s to attack a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) : 8 “A f acia l attack on the c omplaint requires the court mer ely to look and see if the plaintiff has suff

iciently alleg ed a ba sis of subject matter jurisdiction, and the alleg ations in his complaint are take n as true f or the purpose s of the motion.” B y contra st, a fac tual attack on a complaint challeng es the e x istence of subject matter jurisdiction using material extrinsi c fr om the pleading s, such as a ffidavits or testimony
. Stalley ex rel. United States v. Orlando Reg ’l Hea lthcare Sy s., Inc., 524 F .3d 1229, 1232–33 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotingMcElmurra y v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond County , 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007)). B eca use the g overnme nt has not ref err ed this Court to any extrinsi c material, we a lso construe its attack on Me lquiades’s motion as fa cial in nature
. 12Ina Ru le 41 (e) p ro ceed in g, a c la im an t m us t al le ge “ a co lo rab le own ers hi p, p os se ss ory

or s ecu rit y

in te res t i n a t l eas t a p orti on of t he de fen da ntpro pe rty” to sat is fy th e st an di ng requi rem en ts . W he n t he cl ai m an t al le ge s s uc h a n i nt eres t i n t he sei zedpro pe rty, the st an di ng requi rem en ts are s at is fie d “ be cau se anown er o r po ss es so r of pro pe rty th atha s b eensei zedne ces sa ril y su ffer s an in

jury thatcanbe redres se d atlea stin part b y

th e return o f th e se iz edpro pe rty.” Id . at 1 20 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . $5 15 ,06 0.4 2 i n U.S. Cu rren cy , 15 2 F .3d49 1, 49 7 (6 thCir . 19 98 )). InRo dr ig ue z-Ag ui rre t he m ov an ts li st eda nu m be r of it em s th atth ey all eg edha d b een “ se iz edfro m th em .” Id . at 1 20 5 (e m

ph as is om it te d)
. The Tenth C irc ui t d eem ed“ no t d is po si ti ve of t he st an di ng in qu iry” th e go ve rn m en t’s co nc ern s (1 ) th atth e m ot io n i na de qu at el y de sc rib edth e p ur

po rte dl y se iz edit em s, an d (2 ) th atth e m ov an ts were n otth em se lv es th e true own ers —t wo arg um en ts si m il ar t o t ho se m ad e in op po si ti on to Mel qu ia de s’s m ot io n. Se e id . at 12 06 n.7 . Rath er than re so lv e th es e is su es at a n e arl y st ag e in th e p ro ceed in gs , th e Ro dr ig ue z-Ag ui rre C ou rt c on cl ud edth at“ [w]hethe r so m e o f th e li st ed pr op erty do es no t, i n fa ct , bel on g t o Ap pe ll an ts is a m at te r be tt er d eal t wi th on su m m ary jud gm en t o r attri al .” Id
. Si m il arl y , inth is cas e, Mel qu ia de s n eed edon ly to al le ge fact s s uf fic ie ntto de m on st rat e h is po ss es so ry in te res t i n t he sei zedgo od s. Des pi te th e g ov ern m en t’s arg um en ts to th e co nt rary, he was no t b ur de ne d wi th “ sh ow[ in g] th atth e Uni te d St at es ev er h adsei zedth e as se rte d p ro pe rty, m os t o f whi ch he de sc rib edin 13ex tre m el y

va gu e te rm s,” o r “ th atth e as se rte d p ro pe rty bel on ge d t o h im .” Rathe r, whe n e va lu at in g wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de ni edMel qu ia de s’s m ot io n ba se d s ol el y

onth e p arty ’s pl ead in gs , “ we are c on cern edon ly w it h t he all eg at io ns co nt ai ne d i n [t he m ot io n] an d n otwith a ctua l ev id en ce.” Se e Ro dr ig ue z-Ag ui rre, 26 4 F .3dat 1 20 6. To ho ldot he rwis e an d “ [r]equ ir[ e] evi de nc e o f own ers hi p, as op po se d t o a ll eg at io ns of o wne rs hi p, [wo ul d b e] ant it he ti cal to th e st an da rd s fo r rev ie win g 1 2( b) (1 ) m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r la ckof f aci al st an di ng .” Id
. Co ns tru in g M el qu ia de s’s Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n—th e fu nc ti on al equi va le ntof a ci vi l co m pl ai nt—i n M el qu ia de s’s fa vo r, an d i nt erp ret in g h is pr o s e fil in gs li be ral ly, Mel qu ia de s al le ge d t ha t wh enfed eral law en fo rcem en t ag en ts search ed hi s h om e o n J anua ry

13 , 20 03 , th ey

co nf is cat edcert ai n, s pe ci fic al ly lis te d i te m s. Mel qu ia de s cl earl y

st at edth at , “ in th is cas e th e Mo vantis th e o wne r of th e pr op erty .” He als o a ss ert eden ti tl em en t t o i ts return. Th us , Mel qu ia de s h as al le ge d fa ct s s uf

fic ie ntto sh ow t ha t h e h as a po ss es so ry in te res t i n s om e p ro pe rty, th atth e g ov ern m en t s ei zedth es e it em s, an d t ha t t he y were n otreturne d. Acco rd in gl y , itwas e rro r to de ny Melqui ad es ’s m ot io n wi th ou t co ll ect in g ev id en ce t o re so lv e th e p art ie s’ factua l d is pu te s. See Po te s R am ire z, 26 0 F .3dat 13 14
.

14III.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th aton ce a R ul e 4 1( g) m ov an t al le ge s fa ct s su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in hi s cl ai m s— cl ai m s t ha t ar e n ei th er b arre d b y law n or fri vo lo us —t he di st ric t co urt m us t co ll ectso m e ev id en ce t o re so lv e th e m at eri al factua l i ss ue s d is pu te d b y th e p art ie s. Th eref

or e, we REVERSE an d REMAND fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on .

15